Arguments or proofs based upon experience come in two basic forms

The
heart of religion is in the religious experience. Just what is it and what
can be deduced from it?

For
many religious people there is in the center of their religious nature the
feeling that there is something more than their individual consciousness
could contact. There is a sense of something "more" or bigger
than anything in the known universe. This issues into a hypothesis or idea
of a supernatural reality or dimension of reality beyond that which normal
sensation can encounter.

A Religious experience
is an encounter of a human being with a supernatural being, be it a deity
or an emissary or intermediary for the deity, nevertheless a spiritual
entity.

It
is a numinal experience. Religious experiences
are for the most part, individual and esoteric.

The MYSTICAL experience is a particular variety of religious
experience in which the subject is transformed and reports the loss of
individuality, the oneness of all reality, union with the deity, the unity
of the subject of the experience with the object of the experience.

The
commonalities in such experience around the world is termed the consensus
mysticum.

It
has been described by Rudolph Otto as involving an experience
characterized as being tremendum et fascinans

II.
The
Questions

The
questions are:

Is
the subject of a religious experience justified inferring from the
psychological experience to the existential or the ontological reality of
the object of that experience: the supernatural being?

Is
anyone else justified in reaching the conclusion that a supernatural being
exists based upon the report of the individual who has made the claim to
have had the religious experience?

Does
the accumulation of reports from such witnesses to religious
experiences justify the claim that a supernatural or spiritual
being, a deity, a transcendent reality , exists?

The MYSTICAL experience is a particular variety of religious
experience in which the subject is transformed and reports the loss of
individuality, the oneness of all reality, union with the deity, the unity
of the subject of the experience with the object of the experience. It is
an experience which posits the oneness of all reality and the unity of
all. In particular, the Mystical Experience involves the unity of the
subject with its object (the deity, the totality).

The
commonalities in such experience around the world is termed the consensus
mysticum.

It
has been described by Rudolph Otto as involving an experience
characterized as being tremendum et fascinans

William
James has described such experiences as having the following
characteristics:

· Ineffable
noetic

· Antinaturalistic
transient

· Passive
pantheistic

· optimistic

James
held that such experiences are powerful and lead the subject of such an
experience to a belief in a supernatural entity.

James
held:

Mystical states are authoritative over the
individual who has the experience

Mystical states have NO authority over
individuals who have not had such an experience

Mystical states break down the authority of
ordinary consciousness and sense knowledge. Such states offer
hypotheses which others may ignore

Such
religious experiences have consequences for those who encounter them. They
issue into feelings and actions.

The reports of such encounters are not
verified as they have alternative naturalistic explanatioins that do nto
invovle the existence of any supernatural agents. So many do ask: Are the reports true? Veridical?

Not
all who learn of the reports of such religious experiences accept them as
conclusive evidence for the existence of a supernatural reality or
spiritual beings. Many have attempted to give alternative accounts of such
experiences that do not involve acceptance of the existence of any
supernatural entities or reality.

Naturalismis an approach to
religious experiences which explains them as being the result of
natural forces. It accounts for such phenomena in natural terms without
recourse to anything that is beyond the physical realm. In general, all
reality and all experiences can be accounted for (fully explained) in
terms of physical processes.

There
are different explanations for the origin and nature of religious
experiences. What they have in common is the rejection of a supernatural
source or object and the attempt to offer a full explanation in
empirically verifiable terms.

Psychological
explanations have been offered by several theoreticians, including Sigmund
Freud. Sociological explanations have also been developed by several other
scientists, such as Emil Durkheim. What they have in common is the refusal
to accept religious experiences as being truthful, accurate, or believable
in so far as the existence of any supernatural reality. One of the
principle reasons for withholding acceptance of the reports is that the
experiences can not be verified and what they report encountering can not
be verified empirically.

ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS

When people hear of those who claim to
have seen god or an angel or have heard a voice or were instructed
by god to kill their child, most people are inclined to think that
the claim is not an accurate and truthful report. Most tend not to believe the person making the claim.
Most people would be inclined to suspect one or more of the
following factors are the more likely explanation of the claim other
than that the claim is accurate and true.

Why
is it that people who make reports of contact with the supernatural tend
to be isolated individuals, single, reclusive, eccentric, even
sexually repressed?

.

Question:

Are
the reports
concerning these religious experiences
veridical (truthful and accurate)?

1.What
is the scientific analysis of the religious
experiences ?

2.What
are the genetic and causal conditions of religious
experiences ?

-in
the human race ?

-in
the individual?

3.Is
the religious experience veridical? Is it truthful? Is it a report which
others can accept as being Correct? Truthful? Accurate?

Humans
should accept religious experiences as
being veridical UNLESS there exists positive grounds for thinking
otherwise, for thinking that the reports are not truthful, accurate or
correct.

Some
claim that there are positive grounds for rejecting the reports of such
experiences, i.e., against their being veridical experiences

1. mystics are abnormal: they tend to be sexually
repressed

2. mystical experience is always mixed with other
elements such as sexual emotion or imagery

In
response to these observations some offer that perhaps the human being
must be in an altered state of consciousness in order to have the
experience of the greater (supernatural) reality which the ordinary
consciousness can not contain or reach. Sexual abstinence may be a
necessary but not a sufficient condition for having such an encounter.

C.D.
Broad

C.D.
Broad notes that reports or descriptions of these religious
experiences involve concepts and beliefs that are:

1. inadequate to the facts

2. highly confused

3. mixed with error and nonsense

4. subject to change in time

Broad
notes that these features are also true of scientific concepts and beliefs
and that they have and do change in time.

Here is a skeptical view of the mystical experiences
that offers a series of explanations of what may induce such experiences
and presents then as hallucinations of a particular nature.

In How to have your own mystical experience
by Massimo Pigliucci

"There has
been a lot of talk about the neurological basis of religious experiences
lately, with both secular and mystical interpretations of the available
results. It turns out that it is now possible to actually replicate
mystical experiences with a variety of methods, even under strict
laboratory conditions."

Perhaps religious experiences are not pure
delusions or illusions. Perhaps religious experiences are only encountered
by those who have an ability to experience them. Perhaps there are people,
even many people, who are "deaf" to such experiences.

Wallace Matson:

If
the subject of a religious experience is to be believed there are certain
requirements to be met. Any perception of an individual should be publicly
confirmed. No private experience can establish the existence of God. You
would first need to establish the existence of God by other means on order
to confirm that what was experienced was both God and True.

No
indescribable experience can be publicly confirmed

No
mystical experience can be publicly confirmed.

Mystics
appear similar to people who are deluded, or mentally ill, not adjusted to
reality. Their claims can not be accepted without evidence. But you can
not have evidence without a prior belief in God.

To
confirm what any subject is experiencing there must be
"checkable" statements.

Similar
to a blind person confirming what a sighted person sees.

With
the religious experiences there are no such "checkable"
statements, so there can be no confirmation. Hence, they can not serve as
a proof of the existence of supernatural entities because they are not
veridical.

Gary Gutting

The
claim is made that in order to establish the veridical nature of religious
claims there are three criteria to be met:

1. many should have the experience

2. it should exist in different cultures

3. the experience should produce a major
transformation involving ,in part, the moral life of the individual

Gary
Gutting claims that the three conditions are met by reports of religious
experiences and so they do provide a justification for belief in a
supernatural being, a deity, God.

Louis
P. Pojman:

There
is both a strong justification and a weak justification to be offered that
Religious experiences do provide evidence of the existence of a
supernatural entity, a deity.

Strong:
this argument would be so strong as to oblige all people to believe in
God.

Weak:
this justification provides rational support only for those who have had
such an experience (or already accepted the world view that holds such
experiences are possible)

Pojman
argues against such a strong argument

1. the reports are too amorphous

2. they reports are circular- acceptance of them
depends on background belief in God

3. reports are not capable of being confirmed as with
perceptual experiences

thus,
they are not checkable, not predictable

V.
FINAL QUESTIONS:

Are
there reasons to think that the reports of religious experiences are not reliable?

Can
the reports be accepted as being true?

Can
they be verified?

Do
they need to be?

Can reports of religious experiences
be used as support for a belief in a deity, the supernatural realm?

Outcome Assessment

This argument or proof does not
establish the actual existence of a supernatural deity. It attempts
to argue for the existence of such a being by offering evidence that is
highly questionable and for which there are alternative and often more
plausible explanations.
While the argument can not be used to convert
a non-believer to a believer, the faults in the argument do not prove that
there is no god. The Burden of Proof
demands that the positive claim that there is a

supernatural deity
be established by reason and evidence and this argument does not meet that
standard. The believer
in god can use this argument to establish the mere logical possibility that there is a

supernatural deity or at least that it is not irrational to believe in
the possibility that there is such a being but the argument does not establish any degree of probability at all
when there are alternative explanations for the reports of experiences
offered. The veracity of the reports has not been established.

OUTCOME:

The Argument:

PREMISES:

People report encounters with a deity or
being sent from the deity

CONCLUSION:

There must exist a deity.

Problem with argument:

1.__X__Premises are false or questionable

2.____Premises are irrelevant

3.____Premises Contain the Conclusion –Circular Reasoning

4.____Premises are inadequate to support the conclusion

5.__X__Alternative arguments exist with equal or greater support

This argument or proof has flaws in it and would not convince a rational
person to accept its conclusion. This is not because someone who
does not believe in a deity will simply refuse to accept based on
emotions or past history but because it is not rationally compelling of
acceptance of its conclusion.